Time to start writing and calling everyone that can do something about it.

I still think there is legal ground to demand that an iPhone continue to function fully after "doing time" with the mandatory ATT contract. Refusing to unlock it is tantamount to ATT sabotage.

PS: I did not know that there is a class action against ATT for refusing to unlock iPhones - after the contract expires...Could you please provide some details?

As far as I know, no carrier ever has to supply you with the unlock codes to any of their phones. Many do so after the contract or after 6 months or so. But there is no law that requires them to ever do so.

There is a law that protects the locked phone user in that they can legally unlock their own phone if they know the code (which can be purchased on eBay for most phones). But only for the purpose of using it on a cell phone network.

There's no "sabatage" involve. The iPhone will still works after your two year contract on an ATT network. It doesn't just die and you have to buy a new one. You can't claim that it's useless or worthless unless it's unlocked. You can always sell it to some one that is with ATT. And it's assuming that it will still function as an iPod Touch (with WiFi). No one is sure yet. So the iPhone (even if still locked and not on any network) is more functional after your two year contract is up, than nearly every phone out there.

The reason why ATT will most likely never give out the unlock codes for the iPhone is because Apple may be obligated to support those unlocked phones. Even if they're used on another carrier network. I'm sure if Apple wrote an app that will add features an iPhone that is on an ATT network, Apple wouldn't want to be obligated to also re-write that app so that it wiil also work on an unlocked iPhone on a T-Mobile network. It is much easier for Apple to concentrate their effort to adding features to an iPhone if it's only on one carrier network.

I do not know whether there's any law in place that state that any carrier must still offer support to their phones, after the term of the contract. If it's unlocked and on another carrier's network. Specially, if they were the one that supplied the unlock code. The iPhone is different in the it will still be useful (and can do many of the new features of the iPhone 3G) after 2 years. Where as most other phones becomes paperweight by then.

The iPhone does not use unlock codes as such, when I unlocked mine I was advises by my carrier to restore in iTunes after that it was unlocked.

For a country that values it's "freedom" there sure seem to be a lot of peope who want the government and the judiciary to step in and dictate what companies and individuals can do in relation to private agreements.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

There are legitimate times when the government should step in and help dictate fairness. Its been proven time and time again that companies and markets can loose focus on intelligently regulating themselves.

Europe avoided the mobile communication mess we have in the US, because the government stepped in early and forced everyone to cooperate on one wireless standard.

But obviously no the government has no authority to step in and change the agreement between Apple and AT&T.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60

For a country that values it's "freedom" there sure seem to be a lot of peope who want the government and the judiciary to step in and dictate what companies and individuals can do in relation to private agreements.

I was referring more to the issue of handset locking which is also practised in European and other countries.

At least the iPhone does not have network customized firmware and branding like a lot of other handsets.

Judging by the demand apparent in this thread, by selling my officially unlocked iPhone 3G 16GB I should be able to cover a fair bit of the cost of paying out my contract if I choose to upgrade to whatevever comes along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenoBell

There are legitimate times when the government should step in and help dictate fairness. Its been proven time and time again that companies and markets can loose focus on intelligently regulating themselves.

Europe avoided the mobile communication mess we have in the US, because the government stepped in early and forced everyone to cooperate on one wireless standard.

But obviously no the government has no authority to step in and change the agreement between Apple and AT&T.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

When one mobile OS has 66% of the worlds mobile web marketshare, with most other mobile OS holding roughly 2% each, their isn't much need to further parse the data.

66% of mobile web marketshare among SMARTPHONES which are a fraction of the market.

Again, you've left out that qualifier several times now and clearly do it purposely with the intent of misrepresenting the information.

Unless you can provide actual data about network load, then you should withdraw your claim and additionally stop INFERRING from one piece of data that notes the use of one application on a small portion of all cell phones used or sold.

Maybe I can find a nice article that shows MMS usage and based off that claim that AT&T must not even have any data running along their networks.

66% of mobile web marketshare among SMARTPHONES which are a fraction of the market.

......and use the majority of the data network bandwidth.

Quote:

Unless you can provide actual data about network load, then you should withdraw your claim and additionally stop INFERRING from one piece of data that notes the use of one application on a small portion of all cell phones used or sold.

Maybe I can find a nice article that shows MMS usage and based off that claim that AT&T must not even have any data running along their networks.

What does this matter. AT&T has roughly the same number of phones using SMS/MMS as Verizon, on top of that AT&T has the iPhone, which Verizon does not have.

No their is no evidence or reason to believe that their are more SMS/MMS messages being sent on other networks certainly not as many to equal the data load of billions of YouTube video streams, Pandora streams, Podcast downloads, and trillions of emails.

The presumption on this point is yours. Please cite any source that correlates browser share with overall network bandwidth use. This is a logical leap and a generalization that cannot be proven in any form or fashion. Repetition won't make it true either.

Quote:

What does this matter. AT&T has roughly the same number of phones using SMS/MMS as Verizon, on top of that AT&T has the iPhone, which Verizon does not have.

No their is no evidence or reason to believe that their are more SMS/MMS messages being sent on other networks certainly not as many to equal the data load of billions of YouTube video streams, Pandora streams, Podcast downloads, and trillions of emails

The first assertion is patently untrue. Verizon is the largest carrier out there and then you have to take AT&T and subtract the number of iPhones from them that do not have or use MMS. AT&T is the only network provider that has a phone of this nature that omits such a major feature. You use the omission to claim ADDITIONAL network use when the opposite conclusion is what should be drawn. Phones with email, MMS AND BROWSERS are likely to use more network resources than phones that have only email and browsers.

Additionally the iPhone is one of the only smartphones or even feature phones out there that has wifi. This lightens the load on the AT&T cellular network. Heck most anecdotal accounts make it known that this the only thing that makes use of the phone tolerable given the nature of the AT&T network. Your browser share statistic simply notes browser use, not use via cellular network instead of wifi. So again, any conclusions drawn from that are misleading.

Plenty of other phones can stream You Tube videos, send and receive email, and make use of phone specific video and audio content. They not only can but DO make use of it. You've provided no proof that iPhone use here is disproportionate to competitors. The claim is unsupported.

Toss up as much dust as you want. Omission of features is not proof of use, quite the opposite. Browser share is not the same as network utilization. The iPhone always has an out from the AT&T network via wifi and finally, the only stat that counts us the most direct stat of data use per phone capita and network utilization over all. The rest is dust. Perhaps long winded and well rationalized and justified dust, but dust nevertheless.

I pretty much stopped hoping iPhone will ever come to Verizon. I don't like AT&T so no iPhone for me. I'm about to get the Touch just to play with the interface and enjoy some of the tricks via my WiFi, that should satisfy my craving for the iPhone.

At the same time there isn't one phone I like on Verizon. Phone selection is just terrible. Where are the great Nokia's roaming in Europe. Why is this outdated still alive and kicking? Do we need the government to outlaw older systems much like they're mandating Digital broadcasting now?

You're going to love the iPod touch... I didn't warm up to it at first, but now it's my precious.

The presumption on this point is yours. Please cite any source that correlates browser share with overall network bandwidth use. This is a logical leap and a generalization that cannot be proven in any form or fashion. Repetition won't make it true either.

Its not my presumption. Every report about mobile data talks about smartphones. Their are no reports of featured phones and data usage, because their data usage is negligible.

When O2 UK first received the iPhone they reported for the past few years they'd been trying to sell their data tariffs and the iPhone was the first time their networks were pushed to the limit. You are the one attempting to make this tenuous point, you find the data.

"Mr Key is excited about how iPhone customers are turning out to have a big appetite for data services. About 60 per cent are sending or receiving more than 25MB of data a month, which is the equivalent of sending 7,500 e-mails.

By comparison, only 1.8 per cent of O2s other mobile customers on monthly contracts are consuming more than 25MB a month."

The first assertion is patently untrue. Verizon is the largest carrier out there and then you have to take AT&T and subtract the number of iPhones from them that do not have or use MMS. AT&T is the only network provider that has a phone of this nature that omits such a major feature. You use the omission to claim ADDITIONAL network use when the opposite conclusion is what should be drawn. Phones with email, MMS AND BROWSERS are likely to use more network resources than phones that have only email and browsers.

Verizon has 3 million more subscribers than AT&T because of the acquisition of Altell. AT&T has outpaced Verizon in subscription growth for the past two years, AT&T averages 2 million subscribers per quarter and will easily catch up to Verizon by summer. So that 3 million is insignificant.

All of you are doing is throwing out side ways logic with no supporting evidence. What evidence is there that phones with email, MMS, and browsers use the most network bandwidth? You are just making this stuff up.

Quote:

Additionally the iPhone is one of the only smartphones or even feature phones out there that has wifi. This lightens the load on the AT&T cellular network. Heck most anecdotal accounts make it known that this the only thing that makes use of the phone tolerable given the nature of the AT&T network. Your browser share statistic simply notes browser use, not use via cellular network instead of wifi. So again, any conclusions drawn from that are misleading.

The iPhones lead is so large that it doesn't matter if its network or WiFi. The iPhone's web market share is over twice that of every other phone combined.

Quote:

Plenty of other phones can stream You Tube videos, send and receive email, and make use of phone specific video and audio content. They not only can but DO make use of it. You've provided no proof that iPhone use here is disproportionate to competitors. The claim is unsupported.

Toss up as much dust as you want. Omission of features is not proof of use, quite the opposite. Browser share is not the same as network utilization. The iPhone always has an out from the AT&T network via wifi and finally, the only stat that counts us the most direct stat of data use per phone capita and network utilization over all. The rest is dust. Perhaps long winded and well rationalized and justified dust, but dust nevertheless.

WiFi is not as ubiquitous as the mobile network it isn't as though the iPhone is connected to Wifi all the time. You have no proof that browser share is different from network data use. You don't come with any facts you only come with doubt. With the iPhone having such a huge lead over every other phone should be clear enough proof that its taxing its network much more than any other phone.

You simply want to be obtuse and ignore the overwhelming amount of data supporting this. Simply because you have a bias against the iPhone.

I have held off getting an Iphone because I refuse to pay the additional $30/mo data charge. I wrote to de la vega saying I would be glad to pay an extra $100 for an IPhone without the data plan. I'll wait until the June announcement of the new IPhone but the odds are that I will stay with Verizon for cell service and get a Touch for everything else.

Do you currently have a smartphone with WiFi and no Verizon data plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by algalli

I have held off getting an Iphone because I refuse to pay the additional $30/mo data charge. I wrote to de la vega saying I would be glad to pay an extra $100 for an IPhone without the data plan. I'll wait until the June announcement of the new IPhone but the odds are that I will stay with Verizon for cell service and get a Touch for everything else.

From DowJones Newswire: Seidenberg also addressed the notion of the iPhone ever coming to the Verizon Wireless network, saying it's more likely that Apple Inc. (AAPL) would be willing to work with the carrier under the fourth-generation, or 4G, network, which follows the same technology standard as AT&T Inc.'s (T) 4G plans. He said Apple never seriously considered making a CDMA version of the iPhone because it didn't have as wide a distribution opportunity.

Verizon holdouts should read below. Looks like iPhone won't come until LTE is out. I know Verizon's testing late 2009, but I assume we realistically wouldn't see an iPhone until early 2011 at best.

Even when Verizon jumps to LTE, that doesn't mean that AT&T wold have jumped yet or that there would be an iPhone with LTE. LTE appears to be many HW revisions away from being included in the iPhone. I think 2011 is optimistic.

The part on Apple never really considering Verizon is what I have predicted for a long time. It just didn't make sense to go with them. Apple's most strategic move is to make a lesser company think that they are so they can get a better deal.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

"Do you feel ripped off by AT&T", is a pretty straight forward question.

That line wasn't an island, that line in context of the other lines it followed may have thrown me off. Not only that, I did answer it simply, I don't understand why you said I was dancing around the "ripped off" question. I don't know what part of "yes" means that I'm dancing around the subject.

I simply said no one else's network is being taxed like AT&T. Primarily speaking of 3G where voice and data use the same signal. It sounds as if you assumed I was only talking about data.

"Do you feel ripped off by AT&T", is a pretty straight forward question.

TenoBell, you've not supported your claim about AT&T's network.

Second, why are you so personal in all your attacks? Every person that you engage has an array of claims by you tossed at them. I'm "biased and obtuse." JeffDM is "dancing and evading."

Someone who claims to have the facts should be able to present them without getting so personal.

I'm not going to repeat myself. I gave you the criteria to meet your claim. You instead declared the criteria a claim and demand I support it. You have no proof with regard to AT&T, Verizon and any sort of network loads. Support the claim or withdraw it. Don't call me or others names or insinuate anything to avoid supporting or distract from supporting it. Just do it. Support your claim.

Europe avoided the mobile communication mess we have in the US, because the government stepped in early and forced everyone to cooperate on one wireless standard.

The problem is that governments can (and often get it wrong). Europe's bet on GSM was a success, but their bet on 3G was a disaster.

US with a population of 300 million people have just beaten the 5 largest European countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain) which also have a combined population of 300 million people on 3G penetration.

This is why all the subsequent spectrum and license auctions in Europe have been technology neutral for the last 3-4 years. The American way of letting the market sort things out --- is better in the long term.

Verizon has 3 million more subscribers than AT&T because of the acquisition of Altell. AT&T has outpaced Verizon in subscription growth for the past two years, AT&T averages 2 million subscribers per quarter and will easily catch up to Verizon by summer. So that 3 million is insignificant.

AT&T Wireless only outpaced Verizon Wireless in subscription growth in the past 2 years because of the massive net adds by prepaid Tracfone. It really has nothing to do with AT&T.

It's not like AT&T pulls in 2 million net adds per quarter and Verizon pulls in ZERO net adds per quarter.